|
Editor
of Author of
|
Welcome to these regular musings, meanderings, wonderings and wanderings by Wendy Priesnitz. Archives - December, 2004 Contemplating the Quiet – December
21, 2004 Understanding Creativity – December 7, 2004
Years ago, I began a list of things that I think nurture creativity. I’ve added and subtracted from it and had arguments about the validity of some of the items...as well as arguments about things I’ve left off. The list includes: being comfortable breaking rules and taking risks; curiosity and willingness to explore, ask questions and seek new challenges; determination to create one’s own life on one’s own terms; ability to focus; hard work (which includes practice and routine); being comfortable with solitude; and bravery (which includes stubbornness in the face of criticism or failure). There are other things that support and enhance the creative experience, like surrounding yourself with supportive people and avoiding negativity, a “muse”, a stimulating “working” environment (Virginia Woolf’s room of one’s own), having the necessities of life, recognition and acceptance in one’s chosen field. But I don’t believe these things are absolutely crucial to creativity. People who think and live creatively are found doing all sorts of work, living in all sorts of situations. Some have found fame in their creative expression; others haven’t...and many don’t seek it. I’ve enjoyed and been
inspired by Julia Cameron’s bestselling Artist’s Way books,
including Walking in This World – The Practical Art of
Creativity (2003, Jeremy P. Tarcher). But recently, I discovered Creativity:
Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention (1997, Perennial
Books) by the brilliant author and psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi.
He studied 91 creative and influential people, including novelists,
playwrights, composers, musicians, scientists, actors, economists and
philosophers. And he concluded that creativity in any realm involves the
same skill set: dedication, hard work, actively seeking new challenges,
persistence and boldness. Maybe I like this book so much because
Csikszentmihalyi agrees with my thesis: “Each person has,” he says,
“...all the psychic energy he or she needs to live a creative life.”
And what is the difference between those who use that energy and those
who don’t? In my 25 years of observing kids who have educated
themselves without attending school, I have noted that their lives are
more conducive to nurturing creativity than those whose days are spent
passively being told what to do, think and learn. Rocking the Greenwash Boat – December 6, 2004
The article “A Challenge to Conservationists” is a scathing attack on the so-called “Big Three” environmental groups – World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Conservation International and the Nature Conservancy. Author Mac Chapin, an anthropologist who has worked with indigenous people for 35 years, writes, “The large international [groups] are allying themselves with forces that are destroying the world’s remaining ecosystems while ignoring or even opposing those forces that are attempting to save them from destruction.” His lengthy and detailed article is available online (for free, at least for now.) The article prompted World Watch to publish an Editor’s Note promising that the groups would get a chance to respond in the upcoming January-February issue. But, ironically, it seems to have brought out the worst at the Worldwatch Institute. Rumor has it that Worldwatch President Christopher Flavin originally okayed the piece, then changed his mind after realizing that WWF President Kathryn Fuller, who is featured in the article, chairs the board of the Ford Foundation, to which Worldwatch had recently submitted a grant proposal. Since the magazine had gone to press, so the story goes, Flavin apparently ordered the printer to destroy the magazines. Editor Ed Ayres is said to have intervened and the magazines went out. But he has hastened his planned retirement in response. This is not the first time the 50-year-old Nature Conservancy has been attacked for being too big, too rich and too close to its donors. In May of 2003, the Washington Post (which also commented on this latest attack) reported that the group, which purchases wilderness land to protect it from development, may have compromised its mission by working too closely with corporations. It has $1 billion in revenue and 3,200 staff members in all fifty US states and 30 countries, partially supported by 1,900 corporate sponsors. Its strategy, like that of some other environment groups, has been to cultivate relationships with businesses as a way of encouraging environmentally friendly practices rather than insisting on pristine land preservation. Executives and directors from oil companies, chemical producers, auto manufacturers, mining concerns, logging operations and electric utilities are on its board. They, their companies and government policy decisions that relate to them have been largely immune to criticism from the Conservancy. So the bottom
line? Don’t assume anything about the practices and ethics of any
organization or company, seemingly green or otherwise. Research them
before you give them your money. Hyper-parenting
and its Backlash – December 3, 2004 Now, I don’t imagine a hyper-anything turns into its laid-back opposite very easily. And true to form, hyper-parents will do the backlash with fervor. It apparently already has its movement manifesto – Muffy Mead-Ferro’s book Confessions of a Slacker Mom (Da Capo Lifelong, 2004). (Slacker moms – do we detect a touch of guilt in that term? – say No to parenting philosophies that undermine parents’ and children’s ability to think for themselves.) And, of course, every trend and counter-trend has its accompanying industry, this one involving an alarmingly large body of products and services dedicated to de-stressing kids’ lives, from seminars teaching parents how to back off, to yoga classes for kids. Ironically, hyper-parents may be in danger of making the cure worse than the ailment. Maclean’s author Sue Ferguson asks the rhetorical question: “Are we really capable of hands-off parenting?” And perhaps many of us aren’t, because along with pressuring their kids to perform, parents are, according to the November/December issue of Psychology Today, “going to ludicrous lengths to take the lumps and bumps out of life for their children.” This generation of parents seems so invested in their kids that if they’re not pushing they’re pulling. In the Psychology Today piece, which is entitled “A Nation of Wimps”, Hara Estroff Marano writes, “However well-intentioned, parental hyperconcern and microscrutiny have the net effect of making kids more fragile.” Part of the modus operandi of hyper-parents is to protect their kids, to take all the discomfort and disappointment out their children’s lives. So...these parents push and prod and pressure their kids, and then take away all opportunity to learn coping skills and, as a result, make them risk-adverse. In their desire to help their kids succeed, hyper-parents are setting them up to do just the opposite. What a pressure cooker! No wonder that anxiety is the most common cause of childhood psychological disorders, affecting approximately 20 percent of North American children. The Psychology Today piece quotes one child as telling his psychologist, “I wish my parents had some hobby other than me.” Well, even though the big
magazines are writing about the subject (and my own Life Learning
magazine – dedicated to helping parents let their kids have the space
to learn – is steadily increasing its readership), I’m probably being
too optimistic to think this backlash against hyper-parenting is gaining
huge speed. Psychology Today’s writes, “Messing up, even in
the playground, is wildly out of style. Although error and
experimentation are the true mothers of success, parents are taking
pains to remove failure from the equation.” I guess there is a long
distance between knowing something and putting it into practice. Valuing
Young People – December 1, 2004 The students secretly recorded the vocals with the help of their music teacher Alun Renshaw. He took them to a nearby recording studio without the permission of the British school’s headmistress, after being approached by the band’s management. On hearing the song, the headmistress banned the pupils from appearing on television or video in connection with the song. And the local school authority described the lyrics as “scandalous”. The school was paid 1,000 pounds and later given a platinum record of the song but the individuals involved were never paid. Now that, I think, is the scandalous part! It shows just how undervalued young people were, and continued to be. But now, one of those former students has engaged a royalties expert to claim unpaid royalties on behalf of the whole group. They are not suing the band; instead, they are taking advantage of a royalty fund established under British copyright law. Music teacher Renshaw told a British newspaper that he accepted the band’s offer because he viewed it as “an interesting sociological thing and also a wonderful opportunity for the kids to work in a live recording studio. I sort of mentioned it to the headteacher, but didn’t give her a piece of paper with the lyrics on it.” Good for him for understanding that learning happens from real life! The album sold over 12 million copies
and the single became No. 1 in Britain and the U.S. And I imagine the
lyrics are still scandalizing many people, aside from the appalling
grammar. Return
to current weblog copyright © Wendy Priesnitz 2004-2007 |
Topics & Passions: natural learning ~ What I'm reading: Creativity:
Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention by Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1997, Perennial) ~ What I'm Listening To: The
Messiah
by Scholars Baroque Ensemble, Rosslyn Hill Chapel, London (HNH
International) ~ Fav Bookmarks:
Deep Fun ~
|
